Flashcards in intentional torts to person/ property Deck (52):
1) harmful OR offensive contact
2) with plaintiff's person
always remember intent and volitional act
what is offensive contact?
unpermitted contact for reasonable person
what constitutes P's person?
includes anything connected to P's person
- construe P's person very liberal
1) reasonable apprehension of
2) imminent harmful or offensive contact
- Do not confuse apprehension with fear or intimidation
(ex: the giant P and tiny D, still assault)
Are words enough for assault
NO, words alone are not enough. Need words plus conduct.
BUT words can also undo conduct
(ie: i would hit you if you werent my brother)
If there is both battery and assault which one wins?
1) sufficient act of restraint
2) bounded area
Sufficient act of restraint for false imprisonment
1) threats are enough
2) inaction is enough if understanding that D would do something
3) time period can be very short
Does P need to know they are being confined for false imprisonment
YES, unless they are actually harmed
1) reasonable belief as to thief
2) reasonable manner of detention (no deadly force)
3) reasonable time of detention
P's freedom of movement in ALL directions, mere inconvenience is not enough
When is the P not in bounded area for false imprisonment?
1) when there is a REASONABLE means of escape AND
2) P knows of it
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (high exam question)
intent or recklessness
1) extreme and outrageous conduct
what is extreme for IIED?
conduct must be so extreme. must be above and beyond mere insults
When normally non-outrageous conduct becomes outrageous for IIED?
1) conduct is continuous (remains the same but is continuous
2) the type of P
(a) young kid
(b) old fart
(c) pregnant woman
(d) adults with supersentsitivties D knows of
3) type of D
(a) common carriers
What about common carries and innkeepers for IIED?
must be a passenger or guest for normally non-outrageous conduct becomes outrageous
Damages for IIED (are they required)
YES. physical injury is not required for IIED, but clear proof of substantial emotional distress is.
Trespass to land
always remember intent and voluntary act
1) act of PHYSICAL invasion by D
2) on P's land
Act of physical invasion by D (for trespass to land)
Does not require that D personally go on land.
- just need some PHYSICAL object to go on land
of P's land (for trespass to land)
includes not only surface but also, A REASONABLE distance, the space going up and down from surface
Difference between trespass to chattels and coversion
chattels: some damage, either takes for reasonable time. Can get damage amount
conversion: destroyed, taken for long period. Get paid in full market value of property
2) Self Defense
3) Defense of others
4) defense of property
Consent (3 step analyze)
1) determine if capacity to consent
2) if express or implied
3) determine if D stayed w/i boundaries of any consent given.
words were used. Look for
- if sufficient, these facts undo express consent
1) custom or usage (rules of game
2) P's conduct
Steps for defense (self defense, defense of others, defense of property)
1) timing requirement
- Tort must now be occurring or just about to occur
- if already occurred, no defense
2) Reasonable belief
3) reasonable force
What needs to be required for reasonable belief for defense
only need a REASONABLE BELIEF that a tort is being committed. do not have to actually have tort comitted.
Is there a duty to retreat before self defense
NO, no in IL as well.
What is proper force for self defense?
may use REASONABLE force (including deadly force is need).
What is proper force for defense of property
may use REASONABLE force BUT never deadly force just to protect property
ONLY APPLIES TO PROPERTY
absolute unlimited privilege and no liability
limited privilege and the D liable for actual damage caused. Necessity prevails over defense of property
what is the price for conversion
fair market value AT THE TIME OF THE CONVERSION
for IIED do you need PHYSICAL DAMAGES
- just emotional distress
for negligent infliction of emotional distress are physical damages needed
x/c: negligent handling
Can the owner of chattel use force to get it back when they lawfully lent it to someone else?
No. W/e another's possession of the O's chattel began lawfully, the O may ONLY use PEACEFUL MEANS to recover the chattel.
- Force may be used to recapture a chattel only when it is in "hot pursuit" of one who has obtained possession wrongfully
Trespass to land: whom can bring a claim for trespass of land
trespass is interference of right of possession
- BROUGHT BY ANYONE IN ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE possession
- even possession w/o title or legal right
can a person who does not have possession of title or legal right still bring a trespass claim against someone
- can be brought by anyone in actual or constructive possession
- even w/o title or legal right
implied consent by law for trespass defense
in emergency where person cannot consent, consent given by law
what is the replacement cost for conversion
fair market value of chattel at TIME OF CONVERSION
landlord duty off premises
GR: landlord owes NO DUTY to off premises natural conditions, but maybe liable for damages caused by unreasonable dangerous artificial conditions or structures abutting adjacent land
x/c where landlord owes no duty to off premises
GR: landlord owes NO DUTY to off premises NATURAL conditions, but maybe liable for damages caused by
- UNREASONABLE dangerous ARTIFICIAL conditions or structures abutting adjacent land
intent element for conversion
For conversion, the only intent required is the intent to perform the act that interferes with the P's right of possession.
- Thus wholly innocent, liability may attach where the interference is serious in nature.
- even a BFP of chattel may become a converter if the chattel had been stolen from the true owner
1) an act by the D interfering with P's right of possession in the chattel
2) intent to perform the act bringing the interference with P's right of possession
4) Damages- interference that is serious enough in nature or consequence to warrant that the D pay the full value of the chattel
is intent to trespass required for conversion
NO, intent to do the act of interference with the chattel is sufficient for liability.
- guilty of conversion when intentionally (volitionally) took
- DOES NOT require person to loe or even realize that taken property of another
for conversion intent is it DEFENSE to think the item is yours
NO. only intent is the intent to do the act of interference with the chattel is sufficient for liability
- only need INTENT to take the chattel
- Does not require person to lose or even realize that taken property of another, can be complete accident
private necessity damages:
must still pay all damages from entering property. INCLUDING injuries done to O or O of the land.
- includes ALL DAMAGES, not just damages of property
can trespass to land exist when D remains on P's land after an otherwise lawful right of entry has lapsed
prima facie case for false imprisonment
1) an act or omission to act by D that confines or restrains the P to a bounded area
2) intent on part of the D to confine or restrain the P and
consent implied by law
where the action is necessary to protect an import interest or property